Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Fix an error around PTR_UNTRUSTED

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 8:12 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 7:52 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Per discussion with Alexei, the PTR_UNTRUSTED flag should not been
> > cleared when we start to walk a new struct, because the struct in
> > question may be a struct nested in a union. We should also check and set
> > this flag before we walk its each member, in case itself is a union.
> >
> > Fixes: 6fcd486b3a0a ("bpf: Refactor RCU enforcement in the verifier.")
> > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/bpf/btf.c | 20 +++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > index 29fe21099298..e0a493230727 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > @@ -6133,7 +6133,6 @@ static int btf_struct_walk(struct bpf_verifier_log *log, const struct btf *btf,
> >         const char *tname, *mname, *tag_value;
> >         u32 vlen, elem_id, mid;
> >
> > -       *flag = 0;
> >  again:
> >         tname = __btf_name_by_offset(btf, t->name_off);
> >         if (!btf_type_is_struct(t)) {
> > @@ -6142,6 +6141,14 @@ static int btf_struct_walk(struct bpf_verifier_log *log, const struct btf *btf,
> >         }
> >
> >         vlen = btf_type_vlen(t);
> > +       if (BTF_INFO_KIND(t->info) == BTF_KIND_UNION && vlen != 1)
> > +               /*
> > +                * walking unions yields untrusted pointers
> > +                * with exception of __bpf_md_ptr and other
> > +                * unions with a single member
> > +                */
> > +               *flag |= PTR_UNTRUSTED;
> > +
> >         if (off + size > t->size) {
> >                 /* If the last element is a variable size array, we may
> >                  * need to relax the rule.
> > @@ -6302,15 +6309,6 @@ static int btf_struct_walk(struct bpf_verifier_log *log, const struct btf *btf,
> >                  * of this field or inside of this struct
> >                  */
> >                 if (btf_type_is_struct(mtype)) {
> > -                       if (BTF_INFO_KIND(mtype->info) == BTF_KIND_UNION &&
> > -                           btf_type_vlen(mtype) != 1)
> > -                               /*
> > -                                * walking unions yields untrusted pointers
> > -                                * with exception of __bpf_md_ptr and other
> > -                                * unions with a single member
> > -                                */
> > -                               *flag |= PTR_UNTRUSTED;
> > -
> >                         /* our field must be inside that union or struct */
> >                         t = mtype;
> >
> > @@ -6476,7 +6474,7 @@ bool btf_struct_ids_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
> >                           bool strict)
> >  {
> >         const struct btf_type *type;
> > -       enum bpf_type_flag flag;
> > +       enum bpf_type_flag flag = 0;
> >         int err;
> >
> >         /* Are we already done? */
> > --
> > 2.39.3
> >
>
> Just noticed that it breaks test_sk_storage_tracing, because skb->sk
> is in a union:
>    struct sk_buff {
>        ...
>        union {
>            struct sock             *sk;
>            int                     ip_defrag_offset;
>        };
>        ...
>    };
>
> I will think about it.

It can be whitelisted similar to BTF_TYPE_SAFE_*.
Please add a selftest for the new feature.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux